This is a CLIP to an article, not even the article in full. While I don't agree that firing people for that reason alone is right, how can we really know that's what happened?

Obamacare TAKES your freedom to choose. While I do not think formula should be freely given to new mothers, I also don't want a larger majority of my medical freedoms taken, which is exactly what obamacare is. Obviously, I couldn't possibly agree with any one person's political views, but I think you need to present more information than a short paragraph when you share information like this.

And we all have our choices, just because you receive formula, doesn't force a woman to use it.

There are many ways that you can verify that Romney really did fire the members of the health council who wanted to halt the practice of hospitals marketing formula to new mothers, and for that reason.

Obamacare does not take away any medical freedoms. In fact, it ensures women's access to comprehensive gynecological care. It also ensures that people with pre-existing conditions are covered. And that young people can stay on their parents' insurance longer. Et cetera. However, I'm not sure that discussion belongs in the lactivism forum.

More information was provided than one short paragraph. Read the whole thread again and check out all the links that are given in it.

Obviously when hospitals market formula to mothers who have just given birth, mothers are not *forced* to use it. However, it has been proven that the marketing of formula to new mothers results in a reduction in breastfeeding rates. (Also, if this tactic didn't "work," formula companies wouldn't waste money on it.) When medical staff markets formula, it implies a medical endorsement. Hospital staff routinely handing out formula to all new mothers, whether they ask for it or not, is like a pulmonary physician handing out cigarettes to all patients. Can you imagine someone saying "just because your doctor gives you cigarettes doesn't mean you have to smoke them"?

Hospital L&D units should not be in the business of marketing formula.

On the one hand, I do think Sustainer is overreacting on the formula front. Formula is not poison, and plenty of families have genuinely been helped by it. Object to the marketing - sure. Breast milk is better - no argument, I pumped a ton of it. But you lose me with the formula = cigarettes thing.

On the other hand, Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Romney was pretty pleased with that system back when he signed it into law, but since then, he's done his best to disavow pretty much all of Massachusetts. When asked what parts of Obamacare he would repeal, Romney doesn't really come up with answers. If you don't like these health care systems, I am afraid there is no candidate for you in this election.

I did not mean that formula is poison, and I know that in some situations it is useful, which I admit could not be said of cigarettes. The point I was trying to make with the comparison is that most mothers have a real choice to make between two options. Breastfeeding is the biological norm and it is what young mammals need. Formula is inferior, inadequate, and contains high fructose corn syrup and other unhealthy ingredients. Whether a child is breastfed or fed formula has a huge effect on whether the child is likely to become a healthy or unhealthy adult. Lack of breastfeeding is one of the biggest risk factors for poor health. Hospitals should not be pushing the unhealthy option! This is the aspect of it that I think is similar to when doctors participated in cigarette commercials.

I think it's misleading to say "breastmilk is better," as if formula is fine and is the standard to be compared to. Breastmilk is just the standard norm. It's not "above" what children need or are supposed to consume. Formula is worse -- much worse. Substandard.

Lack of breastfeeding is correlated with poor health - it's also, however, correlated with lower incomes and higher parental stress levels, which are pretty big confounding factors in determining the roots of poor health.

Formula strikes me as not nearly so much of a problem as childhood poverty, and the lack of guaranteed or compensated parental leave.

There are many things that can contribute to poor heath, but lack of breastfeeding is one of the biggest. It is so important for a developing baby to be breastfed, for so many different reasons. Breastfeeding accomplishes so many important purposes. No part of a human being, whether physical, mental, emotional, psychological, can develop properly without breastfeeding.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a , who each self-weaned at 4.5 years , who both 'd, who were both, and both: . Also, , and !

That's a very extreme, biologically essentialist position, and I feel it's thoroughly contradicted by my observation of the children around me.

My closest IRL parenting allies are the dads down the street, who have two adopted boys. Those kids are doing at least as well as my kids. Arguments like yours hurt families like those, particularly the children (we're not really drowning in foster placements for babies recovering from substance abuse).

Formula has it's place, but for humans breastmilk is the actual standard. Formula is inferior to breastmilk. Cow's milk is for cows. Goat's milk is for goats. It is the standard for the young to consume milk designed by nature for that species.

There are many things that can contribute to poor heath, but lack of breastfeeding is one of the biggest. It is so important for a developing baby to be breastfed, for so many different reasons. Breastfeeding accomplishes so many important purposes. No part of a human being, whether physical, mental, emotional, psychological, can develop properly without breastfeeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

That's a very extreme, biologically essentialist position, and I feel it's thoroughly contradicted by my observation of the children around me.

My closest IRL parenting allies are the dads down the street, who have two adopted boys. Those kids are doing at least as well as my kids. Arguments like yours hurt families like those, particularly the children (we're not really drowning in foster placements for babies recovering from substance abuse).

I agree with MeepyCat in response to the statement above. It is a very harsh, broad statement to make, and kids like those MeepyCat mentioned would be examples of children who might need formula, and might do ok in spite of it. However, I see 100+ year olds every other day in the paper and on tv swearing by alcohol and cigarettes for their longevity - they did fine, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, ykwim?

I think we have a looong way to get around the apologist/consumerist rhetoric of patting people on the back saying, "It's ok, formula is just great!" It's not. And when the vast majority of babies in this country are on artificial milk, something is very wrong. When all new mothers are sent home from the hospital with free formula samples, something is very wrong. It should be the exception (as in the cases you cited), not the rule.

I would argue that we are hurting all babies everywhere when we pretend it's all good, when we make it easy for mothers to quit by feeding them feel-good propaganda about formula, just so nobody feels like a failure or gets upset because they didn't give their kid the best. We need an honest focus on what makes sense for babes, clear wording about the deficiencies and risks, and more support and tools to help people get there - not more kid-glove handling and free formula samples, IMO.

It's just like everywhere else on MDC, where users complain that their parents/grandparents/etc. fight their healthy, natural choices with the age old, "I raised you with corporal punishment/scheduled bottlefeedings/CIO/meat and potatoes/junk food/chemical cleaners/disposable diapers, etc. etc. and you turned out just fine." Well...maybe, maybe not...but I think we should all try to make sure that more babies wherever possible are drinking milk from humans. And that requires a serious alteration in our current cultural communication biases.

As parents, we aim for the very best, but often find ourselves forced to compromise, to accept that someetimes we can give our children the best, and sometimes we have to settle for sufficient.

Formula is sufficient. It's not perfect or best, but there are plenty of families who find that it'spreferable to some of the alternative compromises. Those families are doing their best to raise healthy children, and they are not helped by the language you ladies are throwing around, in which it appears thatformula is like smoking - you *might* get lucky and survive it.

I have never heard a credible claim that anyone could tell the difference between the kindergartners who were breast fed and the ones who weren't. As people get older, it does not get easier to tell the difference.

I'd like to live in a world where parents receive enough societal support to make the decisions they genuinly believe are best for their families. I suspect that more people would breastfeed under those circumstance. I don't think it's feel good propaganda to acknowledge that soome would still use formula, and their kids would not be meaningfully harmed by it.

I apologize for the poor metaphor - it wasn't meant as a direct comparison (smoking=formula) but more of another example of how we rationalize unhealthy choices after the fact (ends justify the means). I believe in a world where we won't sugar coat the facts, so that all families can truly make the best decisions. A world where breastmilk isn't depicted as some super awesome extra luxurious option, with formula as the normal baseline. Formula is inferior and deficient - it is artificial, a poor substitute.

If some families still choose that, when they know all the facts, that's their choice - I respect that. Just like if families want to raise their kids on a bunch of junk food, sodas, artificial additives and GMOs - that's their choice. The kids will survive - their diet will be "sufficient." But I don't see any reason to pretend that humans were meant to live just fine on Cheetos. I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid offending them, patting them on the back and saying, "It's ok, you did your best to make the best dietary choices for your family. Healthy food is perfect and optimal, but this is perfectly ok, too." Um, nope.

The choice of two in this country puts breastmilk and formula as nearly equivalent - like you're buying the same car, but if you want to, you can spring for the extra (implication: unnecessary) features and get breastmilk. That is a false comparison.

So it's not a comparison between formula and cigarettes anymore. Now it's formula is like the food you can buy cheap in the grocery store (you know, the GMO stuff). Which is also just like giving your baby diet coke.

That goes a long way towards making advocates for breast feeding sound clueless about their personal levels of privilege.

The women least likely to breastfeed in this country aren't shrugging at the marginal benefits of mothers' milk in order to do something easier. They're headed back to waiting tables in order to keep a roof over their heads. If you make it clear at the outset that you're espousing an unaffordable standard, they won't feel obligated to hang around waiting to see if you have something useful to offer.

There are many things that can contribute to poor heath, but lack of breastfeeding is one of the biggest. It is so important for a developing baby to be breastfed, for so many different reasons. Breastfeeding accomplishes so many important purposes. No part of a human being, whether physical, mental, emotional, psychological, can develop properly without breastfeeding.

If this is true, then I am a stunted and undeveloped human being because I was never breastfed, only formula fed (due to being adopted).

ETA: If the #1 factor that influences women's breastfeeding decision is the "message" they get about the relative values of breast milk and formula, then I suppose statements like this are useful, and people like me will just have to deal with a lifelong feeling of being a defective and substandard human being.

If, on the other hand, other factors are more influential (social class, access to breastfeeding support, cultural support for breastfeeding, etc.), then messages like the one above are scare tactics that probably do more harm then good.

Living in Wisconsin with my partner of 20+ years and our DD(Born 10/09/08). Why CI Mama? Because I love contact improvisation!

So it's not a comparison between formula and cigarettes anymore. Now it's formula is like the food you can buy cheap in the grocery store (you know, the GMO stuff). Which is also just like giving your baby diet coke.
That goes a long way towards making advocates for breast feeding sound clueless about their personal levels of privilege.
The women least likely to breastfeed in this country aren't shrugging at the marginal benefits of mothers' milk in order to do something easier. They're headed back to waiting tables in order to keep a roof over their heads. If you make it clear at the outset that you're espousing an unaffordable standard, they won't feel obligated to hang around waiting to see if you have something useful to offer.

I think at bottom we disagree that the benefits are marginal. Nothing I've said is an attack on low income women. I completely agree that there needs to be improved access to breastfeeding support, supplies, etc. I don't think we are going to get there unless we get real about the fact that babies need breastmilk.

In my mother's generation, all babies were bottlefed as a sign of higher economic status - only those who couldn't afford formula nursed their babies. Historically, breastfeeding was associated with low income. Nowadays, it's assumed only upper middle class SAHMs can breastfeed - and that's just plain false. Lower income, working women need more support - but the bias toward formula is also deeply cultural. Many lower income, foreign-born women in this country, for example, still breastfeed their children.

My friends include single moms working hard at low-paying jobs to support their families - I am absolutely sympathetic with their challenges. I think the best way to support them is to improve their access to education and resources. Formula is expensive - either they are paying for it, or the state is. How could we help people to reallocate those resources toward breastfeeding counseling/supplies? What would the maternal and child health impacts be?

To me, formula vs. breastmilk is absolutely no different than any other public health issue. It is why I fight for awareness of food deserts, and I try to help people find healthy alternatives to ubiquitous convenient junk food for the same price. Healthy habits aren't impossible on a tight budget. This isn't about privilege - it's about making it work, at any income level. Breastmilk is far cheaper than formula.

I really really feel that even though this whole things seems like it is geared towards the mothers it is more geared to the staff. I was in the hospital for months. My son spent a week int he nicu for jaundice. I cannot count how many times I was offered, and even forced to give my son formula and even told the benefits while waiting for him to be born. They would do it without my knowledge if I was a few minutes late for a feeding even when I had breastmilk in the nicu fridge. I pulled a few bottles out of his mouth in that time.

Don't be confused. This isn't really geared towards mothers more towards the staff to try and bring this behavior of giving babies formula and not supporting a mother trying to breastfeed to an end. And to also educate them on how nutrition in that first few days should be.

Painting breastmilk as a luxury, as a privilege, is rhetoric we need to change. Breastmilk should be no more of a privilege than clean air and water. Where income level restricts that, we need to work on it (again, as with any public health issue), instead of handing over formula in resignation and saying it's ok. Baby humans should have human milk - except in cases of adoption, and other areas where that is extremely difficult or impossible. That is what formula is for. Not for the vast majority of babies in this country.

Beyond low income families, many mothers simply struggle with breastfeeding difficulties and a lack of support - formula is everywhere, and despite the costs (financial and health) many moms choose it - why? Because it's the socially acceptable choice. IMO, we've overcorrected from providing formula by prescription in cases where it is truly needed, to trumping it up as a perfectly great alternative for any/every mother. Why shouldn't we challenge that?

Of course, some mothers might feel dismayed, offended and betrayed. Many in previous generations feel that way about CIO now, too. One usually does when the truth hasn't been imparted by trusted medical providers. That's no excuse not to start to turn the ship.

If this is true, then I am a stunted and undeveloped human being because I was never breastfed, only formula fed (due to being adopted).

ETA: If the #1 factor that influences women's breastfeeding decision is the "message" they get about the relative values of breast milk and formula, then I suppose statements like this are useful, and people like me will just have to deal with a lifelong feeling of being a defective and substandard human being.

If, on the other hand, other factors are more influential (social class, access to breastfeeding support, cultural support for breastfeeding, etc.), then messages like the one above are scare tactics that probably do more harm then good.

Well, you're in good company, as there are many of us across the country who were fed formula! My family is also very much for formula. I breastfed my son against much criticism. I am proud of that, and feel I am intelligent *in spite* of my formula foundation. Maybe if I'd been breastfed I'd have the Nobel Prize for some wonderful accomplishment. Ah, well. I can dream!

My point is, we shouldn't waste time and energy feeling outraged at the shifting of the emphasis from formula to breastmilk. We should be helping the process!

My point is, we shouldn't waste time and energy feeling outraged at the shifting of the emphasis from formula to breastmilk. We should be helping the process!

I agree! I am just wondering what is truly most helpful. I found the PP's statement that no human being can truly develop without breast milk to be very unhelpful.

On the other hand, I think a different PP made a good point about getting staff to change because that can be very influential. If institutions such as hospitals supported breastfeeding by accepting is as the norm and providing comprehensive support to women to get a good start in breastfeeding, I believe that would make a substantial difference in breastfeeding rates.

Similarly, I think that all work places should provide support for breast pumping and breastfeeding. In my peer circle, it seems that figuring out how to work and breastfeed is one of the biggest challenges women face. Women with good work/pump situations seem to do the best. That is all anecdotal, of course. But can you imagine a world where every working woman felt like she was fully supported in doing what she needs to do to breastfeed her child?

I was very fortunate that in my community, there are many ways that breastfeeding is supported. I got a lot of encouragement and help at the hospital, and there was an excellent local breastfeeding clinic that provided a lot of emotional and practical support for me. I really needed it because I developed a breast infection early on, which combined with post-birth trauma and sleep deprivation, was incredibly difficult for me. I was referred to an OB that specializes in lactation issues...the only OB in the county, mind you...I had to drive 45 minutes to get to her. And that opened my eyes to the fact that few OBs have training in lactation issues and know how to help women. So I'd like to see better training and interest among OBs in lactation issues.

Living in Wisconsin with my partner of 20+ years and our DD(Born 10/09/08). Why CI Mama? Because I love contact improvisation!

My personal experience was of poor support and actual interference at the hospital following my son's birth. It didn't really matter that the hospital sent us home with formula --except that the pediatrician knew about it, and pushed for us to use it!!

I think the issues are :

1. Lactation consultants should attend the birth and help those who want to breastfeed get the best start.
2. There should be special handling of breastfed newborns, that aids the breastfeeding relationship. Included in this is absence if bottle feeding (to check sucking ability) and separation of mother and baby.
3. INTENSIVE education of pediatricians on the benefits of breastfeeding and how to provide medical care and information without formula.
4. Lactation consultants must be covered by *all* health insurance.
5. Employers must provide decent accomodations for pumping. Bathrooms are not acceptable.
6. Breastfeeding bras and tops should be covered by health insurance.

And finally, I think maternity leave needs to be longer than 6 weeks, regardless of the child is being fed! I watched many women return at 6 weeks that were walking zombies! Under those conditions, sleeping while someone else gives the baby a bottle would be very appealing!

Well, you're in good company, as there are many of us across the country who were fed formula! My family is also very much for formula. I breastfed my son against much criticism. I am proud of that, and feel I am intelligent *in spite* of my formula foundation. Maybe if I'd been breastfed I'd have the Nobel Prize for some wonderful accomplishment. Ah, well. I can dream!

My point is, we shouldn't waste time and energy feeling outraged at the shifting of the emphasis from formula to breastmilk. We should be helping the process!

Thank you, pek64 and CI Mama - you are explaining this much better than me.

I'm glad we agree that working together is good!
My personal experience was of poor support and actual interference at the hospital following my son's birth. It didn't really matter that the hospital sent us home with formula --except that the pediatrician knew about it, and pushed for us to use it!!
I think the issues are :
1. Lactation consultants should attend the birth and help those who want to breastfeed get the best start.
2. There should be special handling of breastfed newborns, that aids the breastfeeding relationship. Included in this is absence if bottle feeding (to check sucking ability) and separation of mother and baby.
3. INTENSIVE education of pediatricians on the benefits of breastfeeding and how to provide medical care and information without formula.
4. Lactation consultants must be covered by *all* health insurance.
5. Employers must provide decent accomodations for pumping. Bathrooms are not acceptable.
6. Breastfeeding bras and tops should be covered by health insurance.
And finally, I think maternity leave needs to be longer than 6 weeks, regardless of the child is being fed! I watched many women return at 6 weeks that were walking zombies! Under those conditions, sleeping while someone else gives the baby a bottle would be very appealing!

AMEN!

And thanks for mentioning maternity leave. It is just appalling that we don't have mandatory maternity leave in this country. And 6 weeks is not nearly enough. I went back to work after 8 weeks, and that wasn't enough either.

That's a very extreme, biologically essentialist position, and I feel it's thoroughly contradicted by my observation of the children around me.

My closest IRL parenting allies are the dads down the street, who have two adopted boys. Those kids are doing at least as well as my kids. Arguments like yours hurt families like those, particularly the children (we're not really drowning in foster placements for babies recovering from substance abuse).

It's not extreme at all. It's just the plain facts. If you happen to personally know some formula-fed children who, in your presumably unprofessional opinion, seem to be doing well, it doesn't change the facts. It has been proven that there is quite a list of diseases -- many of which do not develop until adulthood -- that people who were not breastfed are significantly more likely to develop. It is not my argument that hurts formula fed children. If a parent has no other option than to feed a child formula, then there is no reason for that parent to feel guilty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pek64

Formula has it's place, but for humans breastmilk is the actual standard. Formula is inferior to breastmilk. Cow's milk is for cows. Goat's milk is for goats. It is the standard for the young to consume milk designed by nature for that species.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

It is a very harsh, broad statement to make, and kids like those MeepyCat mentioned would be examples of children who might need formula, and might do ok in spite of it.

People are reacting emotionally to factual statements. I don't think "harsh" is the word to use to characterize my statements. I am not judging people who have to use formula. I am just pointing out unavoidable, often regrettable facts about the enormous differences between the breastfeeding that children are supposed to get and the modified cow's milk that some of them, for one reason or another, get instead. Let's remember that the topic at hand is whether or not medical professionals should be in the business of routinely marketing that modified cow's milk to the mothers who have just given birth in hospitals. We in the lactivism forum should be able to come together on that one, without getting into an off-topic argument about whether some mothers should feed children formula when, due to the specific circumstances of a particular case, it is the best option for them (of course they should!).

I agree that some children need formula because there isn't a better option for them for one reason or another. I also agree that when formula-fed children do well, they do well "in spite of" the fact that they are consuming formula instead of breastmilk. You are right to use that phrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

However, I see 100+ year olds every other day in the paper and on tv swearing by alcohol and cigarettes for their longevity - they did fine, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, ykwim?

Exactly.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

I think we have a looong way to get around the apologist/consumerist rhetoric of patting people on the back saying, "It's ok, formula is just great!" It's not. And when the vast majority of babies in this country are on artificial milk, something is very wrong. When all new mothers are sent home from the hospital with free formula samples, something is very wrong. It should be the exception (as in the cases you cited), not the rule.

I would argue that we are hurting all babies everywhere when we pretend it's all good, when we make it easy for mothers to quit by feeding them feel-good propaganda about formula, just so nobody feels like a failure or gets upset because they didn't give their kid the best. We need an honest focus on what makes sense for babes, clear wording about the deficiencies and risks, and more support and tools to help people get there - not more kid-glove handling and free formula samples, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

It's just like everywhere else on MDC, where users complain that their parents/grandparents/etc. fight their healthy, natural choices with the age old, "I raised you with corporal punishment/scheduled bottlefeedings/CIO/meat and potatoes/junk food/chemical cleaners/disposable diapers, etc. etc. and you turned out just fine." Well...maybe, maybe not...but I think we should all try to make sure that more babies wherever possible are drinking milk from humans. And that requires a serious alteration in our current cultural communication biases.

I'm going to repeat something that I said once before on MDC:

You know what? I was molested when I was 3. And you know what? I'm okay. The fact that someone turns out okay is not a vindication of everything that has ever been done to them!

Before anyone freaks out, I am NOT comparing formula feeding to molestation! My example is an extreme example of course. I just wanted to reinforce Pickle's point, which is that it is very true, in general, that anecdotes about people who turned out alright are not justification for everything they've ever experienced. A healthy, happy person is not a walking advertisement for every product they've ever consumed. It is possible for a person to thrive in spite of missing out on good things and experiencing less desirable things. It doesn't change the fact that lack of breastfeeding is a disadvantage. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

As parents, we aim for the very best, but often find ourselves forced to compromise, to accept that someetimes we can give our children the best, and sometimes we have to settle for sufficient.
Formula is sufficient. It's not perfect or best, but there are plenty of families who find that it'spreferable to some of the alternative compromises.

You need to read the article I linked above, called Watch Your Language. Breastfeeding should not be characterized as "the very best" (even though, technically, it is). Why? Because it's just the norm. It's just sufficient. It's just what children are supposed to get, no more, no less. Formula is NOT sufficient. It is sub-standard. It does not contain anywhere *near* all of the components that children need. Formula may be preferable to straight cow milk, but it is not preferable to breastfeeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

Those families are doing their best to raise healthy children, and they are not helped by the language you ladies are throwing around, in which it appears thatformula is like smoking - you *might* get lucky and survive it.

I already qualified my statements about cigarettes. Perhaps a better comparison would be one that I remember was made on MDC a long time ago: eating Doritos and a vitamin instead of eating a salad. Children do usually survive being formula fed (in America any way -- I don't know about developing countries). But the fact is that they are at increased risk for many diseases, and they miss out on an important hormonal bond with their mother. I'm not going to stop speaking facts no matter how much some people might not want to hear it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

soome would still use formula, and their kids would not be meaningfully harmed by it.

You lack facts about the effects of not breastfeeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

I believe in a world where we won't sugar coat the facts, so that all families can truly make the best decisions. A world where breastmilk isn't depicted as some super awesome extra luxurious option, with formula as the normal baseline. Formula is inferior and deficient - it is artificial, a poor substitute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Just like if families want to raise their kids on a bunch of junk food, sodas, artificial additives and GMOs - that's their choice. The kids will survive - their diet will be "sufficient." But I don't see any reason to pretend that humans were meant to live just fine on Cheetos. I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid offending them, patting them on the back and saying, "It's ok, you did your best to make the best dietary choices for your family. Healthy food is perfect and optimal, but this is perfectly ok, too." Um, nope.

The choice of two in this country puts breastmilk and formula as nearly equivalent - like you're buying the same car, but if you want to, you can spring for the extra (implication: unnecessary) features and get breastmilk. That is a false comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

formula is like the food you can buy cheap in the grocery store (you know, the GMO stuff).

Sorry, but this is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

That goes a long way towards making advocates for breast feeding sound clueless about their personal levels of privilege.

This has nothing to do with privilege. Whether you consider someone privileged or not does not change FACTS. An understanding of the problems of formula is certainly not an indication that breastfeeding advocates are clueless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

If you make it clear at the outset that you're espousing an unaffordable standard, they won't feel obligated to hang around waiting to see if you have something useful to offer.

First of all, I'd like to challenge whether or not breastfeeding is an unaffordable standard. Firstly, pumping at work is usually an option, though I acknowledge that it isn't always. Second of all, my financial circumstances are such that I am LESS able to afford to be the stay at home mother that I have always been than every single person who has ever told me that they can't afford staying at home and that I'm "lucky" that I can afford to. I live in poverty because staying at home with my children and breastfeeding them is more important to me than anything else. If staying at home with my children hadn't been possible without literally starving to death or being homeless, I would not have chosen to have children. I do not blame mothers for the fact that some of them can't pump at work or the fact that there isn't adequate maternity leave. Those are definitely aspects of our society that need to change. Breastfeeding is not supported. I acknowledge that. However, nothing can change the fact that breastfeeding IS the minimum standard. Children need it, and there's no substitute, and that's all there is to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CI Mama

If the #1 factor that influences women's breastfeeding decision is the "message" they get about the relative values of breast milk and formula, then I suppose statements like this are useful, and people like me will just have to deal with a lifelong feeling of being a defective and substandard human being.

If, on the other hand, other factors are more influential (social class, access to breastfeeding support, cultural support for breastfeeding, etc.), then messages like the one above are scare tactics that probably do more harm then good.

I never said that you are a substandard human being.

The fact that humans can't develop properly, the way they are meant to develop, without breastfeeding, is not a scare tactic. It's just a fact. It is a fact that it is important for people to know when they make the decision of whether they should breastfeed or use formula. Breastmilk contains ingredients that are essential to the proper development of every system in the body. Formula does not contain them. That's why a person who has never been breastfed faces such an increased risk of so many diseases. I'm not saying this to make you feel bad. I'm sorry that it does. I'm saying it because it's a fact and it's important for people to know it, for the sake of the babies of the future.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Nothing I've said is an attack on low income women. I completely agree that there needs to be improved access to breastfeeding support, supplies, etc. I don't think we are going to get there unless we get real about the fact that babies need breastmilk.

Exactly. (Emphasis mine.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Nowadays, it's assumed only upper middle class SAHMs can breastfeed - and that's just plain false. Lower income, working women need more support - but the bias toward formula is also deeply cultural. Many lower income, foreign-born women in this country, for example, still breastfeed their children.

Exactly. As I just demonstrated. (Emphasis mine again.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Healthy habits aren't impossible on a tight budget. This isn't about privilege - it's about making it work, at any income level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LLQ1011

I really really feel that even though this whole things seems like it is geared towards the mothers it is more geared to the staff. I was in the hospital for months. My son spent a week int he nicu for jaundice. I cannot count how many times I was offered, and even forced to give my son formula and even told the benefits while waiting for him to be born. They would do it without my knowledge if I was a few minutes late for a feeding even when I had breastmilk in the nicu fridge. I pulled a few bottles out of his mouth in that time.

Don't be confused. This isn't really geared towards mothers more towards the staff to try and bring this behavior of giving babies formula and not supporting a mother trying to breastfeed to an end. And to also educate them on how nutrition in that first few days should be.

Thank you for trying to bring this discussion back on topic. This isn't about an attack on mothers. It's about medical personnel marketing formula to breastfeeding mothers who don't even ask for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Painting breastmilk as a luxury, as a privilege, is rhetoric we need to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Baby humans should have human milk - except in cases of adoption, and other areas where that is extremely difficult or impossible. That is what formula is for. Not for the vast majority of babies in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

formula is everywhere, and despite the costs (financial and health) many moms choose it - why? Because it's the socially acceptable choice.

I'm running out of ways to say "I agree."

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

Of course, some mothers might feel dismayed, offended and betrayed. Many in previous generations feel that way about CIO now, too. One usually does when the truth hasn't been imparted by trusted medical providers. That's no excuse not to start to turn the ship.

This gets back to the guilt issue mentioned in the article I posted above, "Watch Your Language." Which is a VERY good article, by the way, that all lactivists should read.

It also reminds me that Maya Angelou says "I did then what I knew how to do. When you know better, you do better."

Quote:

Originally Posted by pek64

I breastfed my son against much criticism. I am proud of that, and feel I am intelligent *in spite* of my formula foundation. Maybe if I'd been breastfed I'd have the Nobel Prize for some wonderful accomplishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CI Mama

I found the PP's statement that no human being can truly develop without breast milk to be very unhelpful.

You're misquoting me. I didn't say you can't truly develop without breastmilk. I said the human body cannot properly develop if it is not breastfed. Which is not to say that you are some sort of deformed freak if you were formula fed. It means that you did not receive what Nature meant you to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CI Mama

I think a different PP made a good point about getting staff to change because that can be very influential. If institutions such as hospitals supported breastfeeding by accepting is as the norm and providing comprehensive support to women to get a good start in breastfeeding, I believe that would make a substantial difference in breastfeeding rates.

Similarly, I think that all work places should provide support for breast pumping and breastfeeding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CI Mama

So I'd like to see better training and interest among OBs in lactation issues.

That, too. Even pediatricians are clueless about breastfeeding and its importance. They have a long history of promoting formula. And accepting bribes from formula companies for doing so, by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pek64

1. Lactation consultants should attend the birth and help those who want to breastfeed get the best start.
2. There should be special handling of breastfed newborns, that aids the breastfeeding relationship. Included in this is absence if bottle feeding (to check sucking ability) and separation of mother and baby.
3. INTENSIVE education of pediatricians on the benefits of breastfeeding and how to provide medical care and information without formula.
4. Lactation consultants must be covered by *all* health insurance.
5. Employers must provide decent accomodations for pumping. Bathrooms are not acceptable.
6. Breastfeeding bras and tops should be covered by health insurance.
And finally, I think maternity leave needs to be longer than 6 weeks, regardless of the child is being fed! I watched many women return at 6 weeks that were walking zombies! Under those conditions, sleeping while someone else gives the baby a bottle would be very appealing!

And the mothers being walking zombies is not the only issue. Maybe not even the biggest one. Think of the poor 6 week old being deprived of its mother for such a long stretch of time while she's at work!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CI Mama

It is just appalling that we don't have mandatory maternity leave in this country. And 6 weeks is not nearly enough.

It has been proven that there is quite a list of diseases -- many of which do not develop until adulthood -- that people who were not breastfed are significantly more likely to develop.

Could you tell me what those diseases are, please? My own reading on google and google scholar hasn't turned them up, but it may be that my search terms are bad - names would help.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

If you make it clear at the outset that you're espousing an unaffordable standard, they won't feel obligated to hang around waiting to see if you have something useful to offer.

First of all, I'd like to challenge whether or not breastfeeding is an unaffordable standard. Firstly, pumping at work is usually an option, though I acknowledge that it isn't always. Second of all, my financial circumstances are such that I am LESS able to afford to be the stay at home mother that I have always been than every single person who has ever told me that they can't afford staying at home and that I'm "lucky" that I can afford to. I live in poverty because staying at home with my children and breastfeeding them is more important to me than anything else. If staying at home with my children hadn't been possible without literally starving to death or being homeless, I would not have chosen to have children.

The "unaffordable standard" I was referring to there, if you read the post, was actually non-GMO food. I feel that if we say things like "feeding your baby formula is like feeding him genetically modified food", we lose a lot of people, right there, who can't afford to reject GMOs in the grocery store.

The affordability of breast feeding is based on the presumption that a woman's time has no other value - which is just plain not true for many families.

I don't think we do a whole lot for breastfeeding in particular, or women in general, by saying that it would be better if some children didn't exist.

I think encouraging others to think carefully about their financial and emotional ability to care for a child *before* getting pregnant is actually helpful. I understand the biological urge to have a child. I was married for nearly six years before getting pregnant, largely because my husband changed after the wedding, and I decided he was ready for being a father. When he finally seemed to gave maturity, I thought parenthood could be for us, afterall. It turned out he wasn't really ready, so we never had other children and I did my best to be both mother and father to our child. In my opinion, I failed at that, but I what I could, since the child was here. So I understand that some things happen that are not forseen. Still, it is good to think carefully before committing to bringing a life into this world.

The "unaffordable standard" I was referring to there, if you read the post, was actually non-GMO food.

Ah. Let me alter my argument then. Food that is not genetically engineered is also an affordable standard. Speaking as the single mother living under the poverty line that I already mentioned I am, I refuse to feed my children genetically engineered food. Natural foods contain more nutrients than their unnatural counterparts, so it may look like I have less in my cart, but I'm actually getting more nutrients per dollar. I'm also saving on medical bills in the long run. My family does without all kinds of things that aren't necessary for survival, in order to place the priority on basics such as safe food. Feeding my children toxic food would not be worth saving a few cents per ounce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

I feel that if we say things like "feeding your baby formula is like feeding him genetically modified food", we lose a lot of people, right there, who can't afford to reject GMOs in the grocery store.

It isn't analogous in terms of expense, though. Breastfeeding is not more expensive than formula.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

The affordability of breast feeding is based on the presumption that a woman's time has no other value

No it isn't. It's based on the fact that you don't have to pay to breastfeed (while formula *does* cost money), and if you have a child of breastfeeding age, the most valuable use of your time might be to be with the child anyway. The priority should be on the child's well-being. Also, pumping at work is usually a possibility.

Can we all concede, at least, that nurses should not be marketing formula to all new mothers? That's what the thread that touched off this thread is about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

I don't think we do a whole lot for breastfeeding in particular, or women in general, by saying that it would be better if some children didn't exist.

What?? No one is saying that it would be better if some children didn't exist!

Saying "If I couldn't afford to provide the basics for a family, I wouldn't try to conceive" is NOT the same thing as saying "If I had children, and then I found myself in a situation in which I couldn't afford the basics for them, it would be better if my children didn't exist" !!!

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a , who each self-weaned at 4.5 years , who both 'd, who were both, and both: . Also, , and !

The "unaffordable standard" I was referring to there, if you read the post, was actually non-GMO food. I feel that if we say things like "feeding your baby formula is like feeding him genetically modified food", we lose a lot of people, right there, who can't afford to reject GMOs in the grocery store.

I think this is getting really nitpicky. I also listed junk food, artificial additives, and soda - I'm sorry those three letters set off a class war. Secondly, non-GMO processed foods may be more expensive, yes - but humans don't need processed foods. As Sustainer mentioned, it is possible to do without them entirely, or otherwise prioritize your spending.

The affordability of breast feeding is based on the presumption that a woman's time has no other value - which is just plain not true for many families.

Every family has to make their own economic decisions based on what would be best for their children - and they deserve the best information to base those decisions on. After all, women work to provide their children with food and, often, access to healthcare (or money to pay for it). Presumably, mothers care about their infant's nutrition and health.

So helping them understand how breastfeeding (which provides the right nutrition, and reduces health care costs) can help meet those same goals, not contradict them, is a good idea. The cost benefits alone go far beyond just the high price of formula, and should factor into decisions about extent of employment, place of employment, ability to pump, etc.

I don't think we do a whole lot for breastfeeding in particular, or women in general, by saying that it would be better if some children didn't exist.

What on earth...the only suggestion was responsible family planning. Since when isn't that good for women?

On the main topic, formula samples weaken new mothers' resolve - I know they did for me, as I supplemented for convenience (sometimes simply for modesty during visits, when I still worried about that) on more than one occasion - after all, it was there, didn't want it to go to waste! I felt a strange brand loyalty, too - because it was what I got "at the hospital" - there is absolutely an implicit approval in hospitals pushing formula samples, if not an overt response from staff (as a PP mentioned).

Later, I very nearly switched to formula, especially when DS had major digestive issues (which turned out to be from foremilk/hindmilk imbalance, oversupply and overactive letdown) that the pediatricians kept trying to solve with drugs and expensive formula. Once I found out (on my own) what the cause was, it was a whole different ballgame. But we nearly lost that relationship, and free formula samples were one contributing factor.

Some may disagree with Obamacare, but I find it hard to disagree with the provision that employers at least allow a woman a clean, private pumping area (not a bathroom) and breaks to pump (even if unpaid).

Sustainer, neither of these items provides backup links to the scientific material supporting their claims, which makes it hard to evaluate the basis of those claims. In particular, the claim that non-breastfed infants have a 21% higher rate of postneonatal mortality merits examination - because poverty is so very large a confounding factor in infant mortality. Some of the other claims in these articles, particularly those about the benefits of breast feeding for working mothers, strike me as facile and unexamined. Working mothers don't get many of the "convenience' benefits of breast feeding, like not having to wash things, and children in daycare have a ton of sick time out regardless, in my personal experience.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

The affordability of breast feeding is based on the presumption that a woman's time has no other value

No it isn't. It's based on the fact that you don't have to pay to breastfeed (while formula *does* cost money), and if you have a child of breastfeeding age, the most valuable use of your time might be to be with the child anyway. The priority should be on the child's well-being. Also, pumping at work is usually a possibility.

If I have an hourly wage job (as I did when my children were small), I do not get paid for pumping breaks. That means either I have to get by on less income - income for a seven hour day instead of an eight hour day, and less potential for overtime in my check - or physically be at my work for more hours. More hours at work = more childcare costs. And in support of breastfeeding at all, I need a gadget, costing between $100 and $300, and available fridge space. (Would the most valuable use of my time been at home? We discussed it - no. Someone in our family had to bring home health insurance.) Pumping at work was *usually* a possibility, except for all the days I spent on client site, when my direct employer had no control over the circumstances (definitely no fridge space). So even if I'm not paying out cash to breast feed at the grocery store, breast feeding cost me money. Some days, it made formula look cheap. It's my experience that you can't effectively advocate for breast feeding with working mothers unless you acknowledge this reality.

There are laws that support pumping breaks and space, but they're toothless, and rarely enforced. They don't reach a lot of mothers who could really use them. I would love to see improvement in these laws, but I know of no proposed or planned law that does so.

Quote:

Can we all concede, at least, that nurses should not be marketing formula to all new mothers? That's what the thread that touched off this thread is about.

I can kind of concede that, but I'm not universally opposed to handing out samples in hospital, and I don't think the practice needed to be banned at the statewide level in Massachusetts.

My first child had quite pronounced jaundice by the morning of the day we expected to leave the hospital. The hospital was concerned - was this an indication of a real liver problem, or just a thing that was persisting and worsening because my milk wasn't in yet? I was concerned too. The hospital's lactation consultant suggested the simple test of giving the baby an ounce of formula to see what happened. If it was liver problem jaundice, the formula would have no effect on how yellow he was turning. If it was breastfeeding jaundice, his bilirubin levels should fall. This was the only ounce of formula that kid ever had - it was breastfeeding jaundice, he came home with us slightly less orange then he had been, and my milk came in within a day or so, putting paid to that problem. IMO, this was a good ounce of formula. That child's next taste of anything but breast milk was food swiped off my plate at seven months.

My second child was 7.5 weeks premature. I was able to pump for her and provide all the breast milk she needed (and donate to a few other moms), but her weight gain was very slow, and on the recommendation of her doctor, we fortified her breast milk with formula to get her extra calories. The nurses were kind enough to supply us with a few sample cans of the proper formula when we went home, and our pediatrician found us more coupons and samples. (There are incidents discussed on this thread where NICU nurses gave an infant formula despite the mother's request, even when breast milk was available - I'm completely appalled by those, and think the nurses should have been reported, and the entire unit put through additional training on the importance of breast milk for preemies. There is no excuse for that.) Even only using formula as a supplement for extra calories, we ran through the stuff, and appreciated being able to get it for cheap or free. When my post-partum depression reached the point where I sobbed through every pumping session, I was glad to have formula around so that I could stop pumping. We continued to nurse until she self-weaned at 13 months, but I stopped working to put breast milk in bottles, and felt much better.

I can think of many situations besides mine in which formula is appropriate and families appreciate samples. I'm okay with hospitals having it and giving it out.

I'm sorry you had to go through those struggles, MeepyCat. I don't think there is anything wrong with a hospital having formula available where necessary, and it certainly seems that it was helpful in your first child's case as part of medical treatment. In fact, most of the hospitals in MA still have free formula samples on hand (beyond the formula available in the hospital) to give to mothers, it just isn't sent home with every mother automatically. I think that discretion (at minimum) is wise, encouraging of breastfeeding, and much less wasteful.

Here is another link, with statistics on risks of illness resulting from formula feeding (with references, and adjusted for multiple factors including socioeconomic status). Given the improved immunity, I find it hard to make statements like, "all daycare kids get sick the same amount regardless":

I can't speak to your specific case, and supplementation sounds like it may have been warranted. I do think that, in general, supplementation is over recommended, in lieu of lactation counseling and more accurate breastfeeding information.

There are many pieces to this puzzle, including legislation, non-profit efforts, education, etc. There is certainly no magic pill. However, IMO, getting rid of mandatory free formula give-aways is one step in the right direction.

One last link to add to the discussion, with disease rates (cited) and economic studies (also cited):

This estimates formula costs at $1,160-3,915 in the first year. If mothers breast-feed for at least 6 months, the family would save $3,442-6,096 in medical costs over 7.5 years, or an average of $459-808 a year (probably higher in younger years, and lower later). This still doesn't take into account the amount of income lost by parents staying home from work to care for sick children who are unable to go to childcare.

Everyone has to make their own decisions, but they should have the best information to do so. Further, no broad scale political change is likely if we don't push education, public awareness, and cultural change (through small-scale actions like formula bans).

Every family has to make their own economic decisions based on what would be best for their children - and they deserve the best information to base those decisions on.

Precisely.

Quote:

So helping them understand how breastfeeding (which provides the right nutrition, and reduces health care costs) can help meet those same goals, not contradict them, is a good idea.

Yes.

A lot of women feel like they're going to a job just to pay for daycare, work clothes, gas for the car, etc. When you add it all up, sometimes there's isn't even much of a money difference if you just stayed home with the kids.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

Sustainer, neither of these items provides backup links to the scientific material supporting their claims, which makes it hard to evaluate the basis of those claims.

That's not what you asked for. You asked for the names of diseases. You can find supportive facts all over the internet or at your library.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

In particular, the claim that non-breastfed infants have a 21% higher rate of postneonatal mortality merits examination - because poverty is so very large a confounding factor in infant mortality.

Most of the studies I've seen have controlled for other factors such as income level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

I can kind of concede that, but I'm not universally opposed to handing out samples in hospital, and I don't think the practice needed to be banned at the statewide level in Massachusetts.

Providing formula for mothers who ask for it is one thing. Routinely marketing formula to all mothers, including breastfeeding mothers who don't ask for it, and whose children have no particular issue which might make formula something that should be considered, is quite another. This second thing should be banned at the national level. And the second thing is the only thing that the original discussion was about. It's what the Mass. Health Council tried to ban, and Governor Romney fired them for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickle18

I do think that, in general, supplementation is over recommended, in lieu of lactation counseling and more accurate breastfeeding information.

That's an understatement. I'm not talking about MeepyCat's case, but doctors and nurses are notorious for giving out misinformation about breastfeeding, and for recommending supplementation in many more cases than the number of cases in which it is a good idea.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a , who each self-weaned at 4.5 years , who both 'd, who were both, and both: . Also, , and !